Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - abit

Pages: 1 ... 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 [245] 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 ... 311
3661
At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

3662
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: December 19, 2015, 05:39:28 pm »
I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.
Good point.

3663
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: December 19, 2015, 05:37:40 pm »
Make a full wallet backup right away and store it somewhere safe TOGETHER with the passphrase ..

First, I had a the older wallet and got the password and passphrase down on paper. Does the passphrase change when upgraded to 2.0? Or is there another passphrase generated?

Thanks
The passphrase does not change. It's the same.
I do use different passphrases for 0.9 and 2.0.

3664
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 关于STEALTH投票
« on: December 19, 2015, 05:26:04 pm »
我觉得不爽的一点,就好比你家门口有条路通往县城,本来不收费,后来有人造了条高速公路通往省城,设了个收费站,结果你去县城要交费了。

3665
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: December 19, 2015, 05:19:56 pm »
Technically, the refund400k is
Code: [Select]
>>> get_object 1.14.0
get_object 1.14.0
[{
    "id": "1.14.0",
    "worker_account": "1.2.90742",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
    "work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
    "daily_pay": "40000000000",
    "worker": [
      0,{
        "total_burned": "1742631985322"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:65",
    "vote_against": "2:66",
    "total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
    "total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
    "name": "refund400k",
    "url": ""
  }
]
Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned".

3666
Imo 10 BTS is still too high for a common Chinese user.
10 BTS transfer fee for payments below 10 bitCNY is still a significant reduction over the current 30 BTS.
It cannot be too low because it will encourage people to game the system by splitting their payments into several smaller parts.
It's a bit high for individuals, however maybe merchants don't think it's high?

3667
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Questions about the refund400k worker proposal
« on: December 19, 2015, 02:19:39 pm »
Technically, the refund400k is
Code: [Select]
>>> get_object 1.14.0
get_object 1.14.0
[{
    "id": "1.14.0",
    "worker_account": "1.2.90742",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
    "work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
    "daily_pay": "40000000000",
    "worker": [
      0,{
        "total_burned": "1742631985322"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:65",
    "vote_against": "2:66",
    "total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
    "total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
    "name": "refund400k",
    "url": ""
  }
]
Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned". Is init0 able to change the destination of the funds in the future?

//Update:
Since this thread has been dig out recently, I'm updating this message.

The refund400k worker IS a refund worker, although it has a "total_burned" data field. init0 is unable to change the type of worker or destination of the funds.

More info in this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20793.0.html , quoted below:
Quote
Those that have an initializer of "0" are refund, those with "2" are burn.
An initializer of "1" would be a regular worker with payout to the creator.

Also see
* http://docs.bitshares.eu/bitshares/user/worker.html
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=22486.0

3668
This is because your fee pool is empty, so the transaction defaults to paying fees in BTS. If you want fees to be paid in FISTBUMP you need to replenish the fee pool.

Thank you.  Is this how it works, the UIA issuer funds this fee pool originally or the fee pool is taken out of the cost of the UIA?  And the UIA issuer must replenish the fee pool, which means they pay everyone's fees(?) using the UIA, when the pool is empty or they don't replenish the fee pool and then others pay the fee in BTS on their own. Do I have that right?
No..
Just answered a similar question: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,8390.msg267245.html#msg267245
By the way how many UIA will be paid to the issuer is defined by "core_exchange_rate".

Quote
Can the GUI possibly show this up front in a future release? It's a bit confusing to see that you're paying fees in the UIA then on the next screen it's swapping to BTS. I did not catch it on two occasions. It also may rub some the wrong way like a bait & switch without some explanation in the GUI for why this is happening. Could some red text under the "Fee 30 BTS" on the confirmation page explaining "The Fee Pool for this UIA is empty and this Fee must be paid in BTS" be added in a future release?
Submit a issue to github? https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues
Or the UI/UX board https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/board,106.0.html

3669
The memo key for that account is BTS1111111111111111111111111111111114T1Anm, and it appears to be the same for a few others I checked. I believe this means that it's impossible for anyone to read the memos.

Have you sent memos to collateral-holder accounts before?
Can you leave the memo blank as a workaround?

Oh, hmmmm, that's interesting. I had just assumed this was a completely normal account with a custom name. Why would it have an invalid memo key?
Interesting. Maybe something wrong with the genesis file?

3670
I like that your solution attempts to balance the needs of the referral programme with the need to be able facilitate, if not micro, at least smaller size transactions, like for example tipping. It is also simpler to implement that percentage based fees. Definitely worth considering.

I'm sure we can find some common ground and arrive at a simple solution that:
- respects both tipping/micro-payments and the referral program
- is simple for the users to remember and the devs to implement
- prevents spamming

The solution I proposed also enables some pseudo-regional customization, i.e. we could set the fee thresholds like this:
- for bitCNY: 10 bitCNY (~1.5 USD)
- for bitEUR: 1 bitEUR (~1.1 USD)
- for bitUSD: 1 bitUSD
And this way the Chinese users will get a bit of preferential treatment but without any real temptation to game the system.
Imo 10 BTS is still too high for a common Chinese user.

3671
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: December 19, 2015, 02:00:21 pm »
So just this little item remains a mystery for me:
"Price per KByte Transaction Size" - when does it apply?
http://cryptofresh.com/fees

For example if you transfer or issue some assets with memo it will apply. Imho it's rather annoying, since most transfers are with memos, as a result fees are always different and fractional. We'd better set a "free" memo size which charges no extra per KBytes fee.

3672
Sorry for mention this again and again in the forum, but I really don't like such kind of rush-for-voting.

http://cryptofresh.com/workers
http://cryptofresh.com/ballots

3673
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: December 19, 2015, 01:22:13 pm »
I have a couple of questions regarding transfer fees for UIAs (and private MPAs):

(1) A newly created UIA has 2.5k BTS in its fee pool. I know I can easily add funds to the fee pool but who funded the initial 2.5k BTS?
Half of the creation fee.

Quote
(2) Is it true that 100% of the transfer fees on UIAs (and private MPAs) belong the issuer? (as they show as Unclaimed Issuer Income in the GUI)
No when fees are paid in UIA, some BTS (amount is defined by the fee schedule) are deducted from fee pool and paid to the network/referral program, and UIA paid to the issuer. Except the % market fee (by now) which goes to the issuer directly.
Quote
(3) If (2) is true, does it mean that:
(a) the BitShares network alows to transfer UIAs (and private MPAs) back and forth between BitShares accounts without getting any revenue for this service?
(b) transfer fees for UIAs (and private MPAs) are exempt from the referral program?
(c) the issuer of UIA (and private MPA) can set the transfer fee on their asset to any arbitrary level (or even zero) by adjusting the Core Exchange Rate?

(4) What is the meaning of "Price per KByte Transaction Size" listed in /explorer/fees?

3674
@clayop How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.

3675
@jakub How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.

Pages: 1 ... 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 [245] 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 ... 311